Not if they don't want or need a community around their product. I posted about this above, but I suspect Oracle are of the opinion that there's no money to be made selling Solaris as a general purpose OS. They probably just want it as the bottom layer in a hardware & software bundle, tuned to running Oracle or Java workloads.

They’ve completely alienated and scared off the community around OpenSolaris, killed any lines of communication by clamping down on employee blogs and ignored open letters from highly influential and important community members begging for *any* kind of information. They’ve forbidden Sun/Oracle employees from heading up the Solaris user groups and booted the meetings out of their buildings; turned Solaris 10 into a 30-day trial, and pushed back the 2010.x release of OpenSolaris with no word as to it’s planned release date, or even if it is being continued as a product.

Oracle are doing a superb job of killing Solaris - at least, as we knew it to be.

Oracle just really doesn't care about Solaris as a general purpose OS (there's no money in it), and it makes sense although I personally find it tragic. It's probably why they're also killing all their OEM deals. I strongly suspect Oracle's overall aim is to have Solaris relegated to the role of running as the bottom layer in an Oracle "database machine" or Java appserver bundle.

It excels in these tasks, and it would obviously fit into Oracle's stated goal of being a one stop shop, where if you want to run Oracle, they'll sell you the bundle - hardware, storage, OS and software. If they no longer want it to be a dominant general purpose datacenter OS, then their approach makes sense. They don't need a "community" around the product, they don't need open source developers porting applications to it, and they certainly don't need the overhead of running and managing a community portal anymore.

I think the way they are going about it reprehensible, and it's a tragic end for such a historic and innovative OS but you can see why. Larry is all about the $$$, and Sun's approach just wasn't bringing in the big bucks.

- Sun's HW products going to trash...

While I may agree with you when it comes to Sun's generic x86 boxes (although they have some really nice engineering) and most of their StorageTek arrays, it would be a tragedy if Sun's Niagara boxes (T-series coolthreads processors) and storage servers (X4500 and 7000 "Amber Road" series) died. Those are truly innovative and unique products, and there is no equivalent out there from any manufacturer.

There's also some great software that Sun have developed, and it would again be a crying shame to see IBM b0rk it all up in favour of their own competing products. For instance, even though you may personally favour Eclipse over Netbeans, the competition from Eclipse lit a fire under Sun's behind and it's come on leaps and bounds recently.

Without competition, the market stagnates and innovation dwindles away. I can't see much good coming from this deal, if it goes through.

Well, not natively. But there are a bunch of 3rd party replication/clustering products that do that for you. The original thought was that a replication engine should be pluggable as everyone has different requirements, so it shouldn't be in the main database. However, they've relaxed that stance a little - there was an announcement of an effort to build a native replication engine being in for 8.4, but it looks like it won't make it until 8.5 or so. But they are working on it (and they recognise something like MySQL's replication has attracted a lot of developers so I would imagine something along those lines).

"I just hope IBM keeps Java, Open Office and the rest as they are and doesn't start to try to make money off them.".

While this is a valid concern (remember, Sun is by far the largest open source contributor out there), that'd be the least of my concerns. I'd be more worried if some software or hardware would even be continued.

I can't see a merged company running duplicate lines of hardware OR software, and whichever way it goes, people are going to be pissed. Just look at the HP/Compaq train wreck, and that was relatively mild in comparison (Tru64/HP-UX etc.). With Sun and IBM, they've got to choose between either a massive duplication of effort, or pick one of Solaris/AIX, MySQL/DB2, SPARC/POWER, Galaxy/iSeries, Storagetek (including the ZFS-based products like Thumper/Amber Road)/IBM storage, Websphere/Glassfish, Netbeans/Eclipse - the list goes on.

Both companies produce such an enormously varied range of hardware and software, I just don't see it working without some serious cuts and massively pissed off customers. Those Tru64 customers didn't all just take it on the chin and migrate over to HP-UX like the good customers they were supposed to be, for instance. If you were working in a x64 Solaris shop, and got told that your migration path was to AIX on POWER, would you move ? Or would you take your business elsewhere ?